One-Year Follow-Up of COVID-19 Patients Indicates Substantial Assay-Dependent Differences in the Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies.

Determination of antibody levels against the nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) proteins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are used to estimate the humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Differences in the design and specification of antibody assays challenge the interpretation of test results, and comparative studies are often limited to single time points per patient. We determined the longitudinal kinetics of antibody levels of 145 unvaccinated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients at four visits over 1 year upon convalescence using 8 commercial SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays (from Abbott, DiaSorin, Roche, Siemens, and Technoclone), as well as a virus neutralization test (VNT). A linear regression model was used to investigate whether antibody results obtained in the first 6 months after disease onset could predict the VNT results at 12 months. Spike protein-specific antibody tests showed good correlation to the VNT at individual time points (rS, 0.74 to 0.92). While longitudinal assay comparison with the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S test showed almost constant antibody concentrations over 12 months, the VNT and all other tests indicated a decline in serum antibody levels (median decrease to 14% to 36% of baseline). The antibody level at 3 months was the best predictor of the VNT results at 12 months after disease onset. The current standardization to a WHO calibrator for normalization to binding antibody units (BAU) is not sufficient for the harmonization of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Assay-specific differences in absolute values and trends over time need to be considered when interpreting the course of antibody levels in patients. IMPORTANCE Determination of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 will play an important role in detecting a sufficient immune response. Although all the manufacturers expressed antibody levels in binding antibody units per milliliter, thus suggesting comparable results, we found discrepant behavior between the eight investigated assays when we followed the antibody levels in a cohort of 145 convalescent patients over 1 year. While one assay yielded constant antibody levels, the others showed decreasing antibody levels to a varying extent. Therefore, the comparability of the assays must be improved regarding the long-term kinetics of antibody levels. This is a prerequisite for establishing reliable antibody level cutoffs for sufficient individual protection against SARS-CoV-2.

Borderline and weakly positive antibody levels against the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2 exhibit limited agreement with virus neutralization titres.

The presence of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in a large number of people is - besides cellular immunity - important to overcome the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. While determination of neutralizing antibodies via virus neutralization tests are laborious, assays to determine the antibody levels serologically are fully automated and widely available. Correlations between these methodologies were recently given by the manufacturers, however performance in samples close to the cut off value have not yet been fully validated. Thus, we analysed 22 borderline and low positive (<100 BAU/ml) samples and 9 high positive (≥ 100 BAU/ml) from infected and/or vaccinated individuals and compared the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott), LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (Diasorin), Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche), and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens) with results obtained from a virus neutralization test. Based on the cut off values given by Abbott, Diasorin, Roche, and Siemens, the positive serologic results were concordant with the virus neutralization test in 100%, 76%, 88%, and 71%, respectively, while in turn, negative ones were in agreement in 29%, 79%, 93%, and 86%, respectively. In conclusion, weakly positive, serologic results are challenging to correctly predict the presence of neutralizing antibodies. Our study suggests, that different cut off values (for positivity vs. presence of neutralizing antibodies) could improve the test's performance, but determination thereof requires more samples to be analysed.

A comprehensive antigen production and characterisation study for easy-to-implement, specific and quantitative SARS-CoV-2 serotests.

BACKGROUND: Antibody tests are essential tools to investigate humoral immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. While first-generation antibody tests have primarily provided qualitative results, accurate seroprevalence studies and tracking of antibody levels over time require highly specific, sensitive and quantitative test setups. METHODS: We have developed two quantitative, easy-to-implement SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, based on the spike receptor binding domain and the nucleocapsid protein. Comprehensive evaluation of antigens from several biotechnological platforms enabled the identification of superior antigen designs for reliable serodiagnostic. Cut-off modelling based on unprecedented large and heterogeneous multicentric validation cohorts allowed us to define optimal thresholds for the tests' broad applications in different aspects of clinical use, such as seroprevalence studies and convalescent plasma donor qualification. FINDINGS: Both developed serotests individually performed similarly-well as fully-automated CE-marked test systems. Our described sensitivity-improved orthogonal test approach assures highest specificity (99.8%); thereby enabling robust serodiagnosis in low-prevalence settings with simple test formats. The inclusion of a calibrator permits accurate quantitative monitoring of antibody concentrations in samples collected at different time points during the acute and convalescent phase of COVID-19 and disclosed antibody level thresholds that correlate well with robust neutralization of authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus. INTERPRETATION: We demonstrate that antigen source and purity strongly impact serotest performance. Comprehensive biotechnology-assisted selection of antigens and in-depth characterisation of the assays allowed us to overcome limitations of simple ELISA-based antibody test formats based on chromometric reporters, to yield comparable assay performance as fully-automated platforms. FUNDING: WWTF, Project No. COV20-016; BOKU, LBI/LBG.

Clinical validation of the Siemens quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG assay (sCOVG) reveals improved sensitivity and a good correlation with virus neutralization titers.

OBJECTIVES: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections cause coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and induce a specific antibody response. Serological assays detecting IgG against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein are useful to monitor the immune response after infection or vaccination. The objective of our study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG) assay. METHODS: Sensitivity and specificity of the Siemens sCOVG test were evaluated on 178 patients with SARS-CoV-2-infection and 160 pre-pandemic samples in comparison with its predecessor test COV2G. Furthermore, correlation with virus neutralization titers was investigated on 134 samples of convalescent COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Specificity of the sCOVG test was 99.4% and sensitivity was 90.5% (COV2G assay 78.7%; p<0.0001). S1-RBD antibody levels showed a good correlation with virus neutralization titers (r=0.843; p<0.0001) and an overall qualitative agreement of 98.5%. Finally, median S1-RBD IgG levels increase with age and were significantly higher in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (median levels general ward: 25.7 U/mL; intensive care: 59.5 U/mL) than in outpatients (3.8 U/mL; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Performance characteristics of the sCOVG assay have been improved compared to the predecessor test COV2G. Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 S1-RBD IgG levels could be used as a surrogate for virus neutralization capacity. Further harmonization of antibody quantification might assist to monitor the humoral immune response after COVID-19 disease or vaccination.

Evaluation of four commercial, fully automated SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests suggests a revision of the Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay.

OBJECTIVES: Serological tests detect antibodies against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the ongoing coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Independent external clinical validation of performance characteristics is of paramount importance. METHODS: Four fully automated assays, Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total (COV2T) and SARS-CoV-2 IgG (COV2G) were evaluated using 350 pre-pandemic samples and 700 samples from 245 COVID-19 patients (158 hospitalized, 87 outpatients). RESULTS: All tests showed very high diagnostic specificity. Sensitivities in samples collected at least 14 days after disease onset were slightly lower than manufacturers' claims for Roche (93.0%), Abbott (90.8%), and Siemens COV2T (90.3%), and distinctly lower for Siemens COV2G (78.8%). Concordantly negative results were enriched for immunocompromised patients. ROC curve analyses suggest a lowering of the cut-off index for the Siemens COV2G assay. Finally, the combination of two anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays is feasible when considering borderline reactive results. CONCLUSIONS: Thorough on-site evaluation of commercially available serologic tests for detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 remains imperative for laboratories. The potentially impaired sensitivity of the Siemens COV2G necessitates a switch to the company's newly filed SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay for follow-up studies. A combination of tests could be considered in clinical practice.